Re: Weird behaviour in wildcard CNAME - is this feature or bug? Can it be changed?

2020-02-11 Thread Bob Harold
Perhaps a real example would help. Here is an example of a captive portal root domain. Everything goes to .25 . A 141.211.7.25 *. A 141.211.7.25 But I need everything except one host, dns1.itd.umich.edu, so I need wildcards

Re: OT: Reminder: DNSSEC series starts in 1 day

2020-02-11 Thread Victoria Risk
Sorry, I hadn’t done a series of webinars before and hadn’t realized the constant reminders are the default setting. I just turned them off. Thank you for letting us know these are annoying. Vicky > On Feb 11, 2020, at 10:32 AM, Jim Popovitch via bind-users > wrote: > > First, I love it

OT: Reminder: DNSSEC series starts in 1 day

2020-02-11 Thread Jim Popovitch via bind-users
First, I love it that ISC does these informative sessions. However, why send out iCal/Calendar instructions AND then send me emails 1 day and 1 hour before each session? I don't want to cancel my registration, but I do want to cancel the constant email reminders. Help! -Jim P.

Re: Weird behaviour in wildcard CNAME - is this feature or bug? Can it be changed?

2020-02-11 Thread Petr Bena
Oh, that explains it, I didn't know there is such a thing as "empty domain", thanks! On 11/02/2020 16:33, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: On 11.02.20 15:58, Petr Bena wrote: for example test.prod.app.pcp.cn.prod step 2) search the available zones - the zone in question here is pcp.cn.prod

Re: Weird behaviour in wildcard CNAME - is this feature or bug? Can it be changed?

2020-02-11 Thread Ondřej Surý
The wildcard doesn’t cover empty non terminals. The only nonstandard implementation that did this was djbdns and the behavior was considered to be incompatible with rest of the DNS implementations. Ondrej -- Ondřej Surý — ISC > On 11 Feb 2020, at 15:59, Petr Bena wrote: > > Hello, > > I

Re: Weird behaviour in wildcard CNAME - is this feature or bug? Can it be changed?

2020-02-11 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
On 11.02.20 15:58, Petr Bena wrote: for example test.prod.app.pcp.cn.prod step 2) search the available zones - the zone in question here is pcp.cn.prod which is found step 3) no matching name is found but *.prod.app exists inside of pcp.cn.prod which is returned However, with

Re: Unable to completely transfer root zone

2020-02-11 Thread Warren Kumari
On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 3:12 AM Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 02:32:55PM -0500, > Warren Kumari wrote > a message of 70 lines which said: > > > Also, can you try: > > dig +tcp . axfr @192.0.32.132 > > dig +tcp . axfr @192.0.47.132 > > dig +tcp . axfr

Re: Weird behaviour in wildcard CNAME - is this feature or bug? Can it be changed?

2020-02-11 Thread Petr Bena
Hello, I fail to see that: for example test.prod.app.pcp.cn.prod step 2) search the available zones - the zone in question here is pcp.cn.prod which is found step 3) no matching name is found but *.prod.app exists inside of pcp.cn.prod which is returned However, with

Re: Weird behaviour in wildcard CNAME - is this feature or bug? Can it be changed?

2020-02-11 Thread Mark Andrews
Yes, this is standard behaviour. It falls out of this section of RFC 1034 which is part of STD 13 (DNS). Work the algorithm by hand with the records you said existed in the zone. 4.3.2. Algorithm The actual algorithm used by the name server will depend on the local OS and data structures used

Re: Weird behaviour in wildcard CNAME - is this feature or bug? Can it be changed?

2020-02-11 Thread Petr Bena
But, is this behaviour consistent with other DNS software (microsoft DNS etc.), or is this specific only to BIND9? Is there any standard / documentation that explain how or why is this happening? Because it just doesn't make any sense to me. On 11/02/2020 14:39, Tony Finch wrote: Petr Bena

AW: Unable to completely transfer root zone

2020-02-11 Thread von Dein, Thomas
Hi, > So maybe try setting `request-ixfr no;` and see if that improves matters. Nope, didn't change anything. Also, I was wrong when I stated that dig works, it does not. It transfers only a part of the zone as well. However, in the meantime we found, that some component drops packets. I

Re: Weird behaviour in wildcard CNAME - is this feature or bug? Can it be changed?

2020-02-11 Thread Tony Finch
Petr Bena wrote: > > Why is this? Is that normal or a bug? It's because wildcards in the DNS are crazy and totally abnormal, but sadly ossified tradition means it cannot be considered a bug. (It's also intimately tied up with the subtle semantics of NXDOMAIN, and rigidly enforced by DNSSEC.)

Weird behaviour in wildcard CNAME - is this feature or bug? Can it be changed?

2020-02-11 Thread Petr Bena
Hello, I observed very weird behaviour that I can reproduce on both these BIND9 versions: BIND 9.11.4-P2-RedHat-9.11.4-9.P2.el7 (Extended Support Version) (slave) BIND 9.8.2rc1-RedHat-9.8.2-0.68.rc1.el6_10.1 (master) Someone has created a wildcard CNAME: *.prod.app.pcp.cn.prod.     300  

Re: Unable to completely transfer root zone

2020-02-11 Thread Tony Finch
Warren Kumari wrote: > von Dein, Thomas wrote: > > > > Does anyone have an idea, what's wrong here and how I could possibly fix > > this? > > This sounds very much like a path MTU issue -- it starts the transfer, > gets part of the way and then a big packet doesn't make it through... I

Re: Unable to completely transfer root zone

2020-02-11 Thread Stephane Bortzmeyer
On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 02:32:55PM -0500, Warren Kumari wrote a message of 70 lines which said: > Also, can you try: > dig +tcp . axfr @192.0.32.132 > dig +tcp . axfr @192.0.47.132 > dig +tcp . axfr @b.root-servers.net > > (no, I'm not really sure why trying with the first 2 IPs instead of >